CORRESPONDENCE - CS -1A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AV INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The decision below held that, under the Eighth Amendment, homeless individuals may not be penalized "for sleeping outdoors, on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to them." Pet.App. 36a. Although this rule may appear straightforward at first glance, in reality it gives rise to a welter of conceptual and practical imponderables. As a result, if this decision remains in effect, local governments throughout the Ninth Circuit may find themselves unable to enforce a wide range of public health and safety ordinances. The dangerous confusion wrought by the opinion below —which many of the Amici have already experienced firsthand — compels review. 1. To begin, it is not clear what it means for shelter to be "available" to a homeless individual. One open question is where shelter must be available. If the shelter must be located in the jurisdiction that is attempting to enforce the ordinance, then even small towns may suddenly be charged with maintaining a substantial stock of shelter beds. Similarly, it is unclear what kind of shelter must be available. For example, amicus San Clemente has sought to comply with the decision below by designating a city -owned lot as a camping area for homeless individuals. But homeless advocates have argued that the decision below requires indoor shelter to be available before anti -camping ordinances can be enforced. And San Clemente has faced a barrage of complaints about the lot's conditions, including claims that the Constitution requires the City to provide cell - phone charging stations for the homeless.